Wednesday, February 29, 2012

A thought occurred to me as I read the following story. In almost every news report we run here, an advocate from what we call the "Sexual Grievance Industry" is quoted in the article about how a false accusation keeps real victims of rape from coming forward.

I don't recall a single one of those people being interviewed/quoted, when a man makes a false accusation.

Those studies that deal with men being raped show that most men who are raped don't come forward. Given that, you would think that in these cases, sexual assault "experts" would be speaking up about the same thing. There seems to be far less concern about underreporting when it's a male lying about being raped.

Or is it that the reporters don't bother to make the effort to contact anyone in the rape support arena for these kinds of cases?

Something to think about.A Utica man was charged with making a false written statement recently after he told police he’d been raped by another man, city police said.

Robert Brower, 42, went to the Utica police station on Feb. 17 to report he had been raped and sodomized. But a subsequent investigation found the incident did not occur, police said.

A thought occurred to me as I read the following story. In almost every news report we run here, an advocate from what we call the "Sexual Grievance Industry" is quoted in the article about how a false accusation keeps real victims of rape from coming forward.

I don't recall a single one of those people being interviewed/quoted, when a man makes a false accusation.

Those studies that deal with men being raped show that most men who are raped don't come forward. Given that, you would think that in these cases, sexual assault "experts" would be speaking up about the same thing. There seems to be far less concern about underreporting when it's a male lying about being raped.

Or is it that the reporters don't bother to make the effort to contact anyone in the rape support arena for these kinds of cases?

The puerility of Michael F. Cotter's piece renders it unworthy of point-by-point refutation -- the tired cliches he posits have been debunked here and elsewhere innumerable times -- but we can't resist noting a few highlights:MICHAEL F. COTTER: ". . . one in six American women (and a higher rate of college students) is a survivor of completed or attempted rape. . . . . The truth is that the cases reported in these statistics consist of unambiguous rapists and rape victims."

FRS: No, the truth is that Michael F. Cotter shockingly overreaches. Most rape claims between acquaintances are in the nature of "he said/she said" swearing contests where the only evidence lies in the conflicting accounts of the parties to the encounter.

For every "he said/she said" claim, Mr. Cotter presumably would credit the word of the woman and discredit the denial of the man. That is precisely what the rape surveys conducted by sexual grievance industry do, and it is one reason why the rape stats Michael F. Cotter cites are not just inflated by Biblical proportions but flat-out wrong. The other principal reasons these rape stats are unworthy of belief are: the rape surveys they come from are often self-selecting; the rape surveys typically engorge the definition of "sexual assault" beyond recognition to include all manner of conduct that is, by any measure, not sexual assault (e.g., sexual coercion; sex where any alcohol was present, etc.); the persons conducting the surveys often recharacterize the experiences described by the respondents to find rape where the respondents didn't; and the surveys typically don't bother to examine the other party's account of what occurred. (The latter point is usually overlooked in discussions debunking inflated rape stats, but it's crucial because rape surveys are premised on the subjective feelings of the respondent -- e.g., "did you engage in unwanted sex?" In contrast, the actual test for rape/sexual assault focuses instead on whether a person in the position of the male would have reasonably understood the woman's words and conduct to manifest consent. In many disputed "he said/she said" rape disputes, especially where some alcohol is present, neither party is lying, there's simply a gap in perceptions about what happened.)

Michael F. Cotter's audacious statement, "The truth is that the cases reported in these statistics consist of unambiguous rapists and rape victims," is akin to holding the facts up to a funhouse mirror, the misshapen image it creates distorts the reality of sexual assault claims. The fact is, the entire area is marked by ambiguity, but that, obviously doesn't fit Michael F. Cotter's preferred narrative. See here.)

MICHAEL F. COTTER: "Furthemore, the outsize public attention on false accusals rests on shaky ground. After all, recent research has found than the percentage of rape accusations that are determined false hovers somewhere in single digits."

FRS: Sigh. Here we go again. Here's the truth. The sexual grievance industry's findings that false rape claims are in the single-digits wrongly classifies every rape claim as a "rape" just because it can't be definitively ruled a false claim. This is dishonest in the extreme. Why? Because there is a vast gray area of claims where we really don't know what happened. A leading feminist legal scholar has acknowledged this irrefutable fact: ". . . the statistics on false rape accusation widely vary and 'as a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown.'" A. Gruber, Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime, 84 Wash. L. Rev. 581, 595-600 (November 2009) (citation omitted). The irrefutable truth is that if you took a group of rape claims and objectively analyzed the evidence on both sides for each claim, you'd be able to say that a certain relatively small percentage reasonably appear to be rape; a certain relatively small percentage reasonably appear to be false or mischaracterized claims; but the vast majority are too unclear to call. That's the boring, unvarnished truth. Sorry that it doesn't fit Michal F. Cotter's preferred narrative, but that's the nature of rape claims. The encounters that spawn rape claims rarely occur in public. But the sexual grievance industry wants to include all the claims that should fall in the vast gray area as "rape" -- it does this by insisting that "only" 5.9 or 8 or 10 percent of all rape claims are false. What they fail to mention is that "only" a similarly small percentage of claims can also be definitively called "rape." The rest--we just don't know.

Michael F. Cotter's reference to "the outsize public attention on false accusals" is typical radical feminist blather. It is unfortunate that people like him think that it's impossible to support the victims of both rape and false rape claims without trivializing one or the other.

Let's start with this: if the entire universe of false rape victims consisted only of the men and boys we give voice to on this site, that alone would justify both our advocacy and the public attention to the problem. The truth is, the public attention to the problem is minuscule -- there's one blog dedicated to it, but I suppose that's one blog too many for people like Michael F. Cotter -- and the universe of false rape victims is much, much larger than the people we feature here.

False and wrongful rape claims are a fundamental social evil. But despite the grievous harm often suffered by the falsely accused, their unique needs are rarely acknowledged, much less addressed. The public scorn from false rape claims has caused innocent men and boys to be killed and to kill themselves; to be beaten, to be chased, to be spat upon, and to be looked upon with suspicion long after they are cleared of wrongdoing. They lose not only their good names but often their jobs, their businesses, and their friends. It is often impossible for the falsely accused to ever obtain gainful employment once the lie hits the news: for the rest of his life, a falsely accused man will have prospective employers Googling his name and discovering the horrid accusation.

As a society, we permit the reputations of persons falsely accused of sex crimes to be destroyed by even baseless accusations of a lone accuser; we permit the presumptively innocent, who too often turn out to be falsely accused, to be arrested and jailed on even far-fetched claims, with bail set sufficiently high to insure they won't be released before trial; and we excuse false accusers with little or no punishment, inviting others to falsely accuse with impunity and without deterrent.

The unique needs of the falsely accused are ignored because the entire rape milieu has become unnecessarily gender-politicized, and the persons who dominate the public discourse too often feel the way Michael F. Cotter feels. By any measure, denigrating the experience of the wrongly accused by dismissing them as a myth or as unworthy of our discussion, and regarding the victimization of our daughters as somehow more worthy of our protection than the victimization of our sons, is not merely dishonest but morally grotesque.

FRS: It is astounding that we are forced to conduct a high school civics lesson for persons who were actually admitted to an Ivy League institution of higher learning, but we are accustomed to it. The "failure" that Mr. Cotter references is actually a product of a silly little thing that people like Mr. Cotter seem to have no use for: due process of law. Our criminal jurisprudence properly insists that no one should be convicted of a crime without proof that is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Does Mr. Cotter think that every rape claim should be handed over to a jury? Does he assume that district attorneys don't know what they're doing when they decide not to bring cases to trial? Should they be more like Mike Nifong? Just roll the dice with a presumptively innocent young man's life? Seriously?

Enough. Mr. Cotter writes like a lot of sincere young zealots. He sees all black-and-white in a world filled with gray. He would do well to write with greater balance, like the persons who are most respected in the public discourse on sexual assault. See here. We, at FRS, respect those people even if we largely disagree with them.

The puerility of Michael F. Cotter's piece renders it unworthy of point-by-point refutation -- the tired cliches he posits have been debunked here and elsewhere innumerable times -- but we can't resist noting a few highlights:

Delaware County mother, accused of having sex with her son's 15-year-old friend, is out of jail and awaiting an arraignment. A judge has agreed to place 34-year-old Teri Mezzatesta on an electronic monitoring system so she can take care of her disabled grandmother at her Upper Chichester home.

Mezzatesta faces charges of statutory sexual assault, a second-degree felony, and false swearing in official matters by falsely incriminating another. Mezzatesta claims she was sexually assaulted.

Mezzatesta was arrested on January 27 after, according to the affidavit, her son went to school officials about what he allegedly saw on the night of November 15.

In the affidavit, the 14-year-old son tells police he witnessed his mother having sexual intercourse with his 15-year-old friend who was over their home.

The son told police after he and his friend had been smoking pot, he fell asleep. Sometime later, he was awoken by the sound of his mother's voice.

That's when, the affidavit states, he walked into the living room and saw his mom and friend having sex.

The son punched his friend in the face and kicked him out of the house.

The affidavit says Mezzatesta told her son not to tell police because she could go to jail.

The son's friend soon returned and told him he had nowhere else to go and he allowed the friend to stay the night.

Because the friend's cell phone died, the son lent his friend his phone.

Two days later, the phone was returned to the son and he saw text messages between his friend and his mother that were of a sexual nature, the affidavit states.

The son then went to school officials who then contacted police.

The police interviewed the teen allegedly involved in the incident.

In the affidavit, the 15-year-old tells police he drove to a local tavern and purchased margarita coolers that night, which he and Mezzatesta drank on the porch before going back inside around midnight.

He told police Mezzatesta, who appeared drunk, asked him if he wanted oral sex and he agreed; this then led to intercourse.

According to the affidavit, the boy says Mezzatesta loudly instructed him on what to do which is when the son woke up and witnessed the two having sex.

However, Mezzatesta told police a different story, the affidavit states.

When interviewed by police, Mezzatesta allegedly claimed she was drinking that night and fell asleep on the couch.

She told police at around 2:00 a.m., she woke up to her son screaming and the 15-year-old friend on top of her.

Mezzatesta told police the 15-year-old had sexually assaulted her.

As a condition of the bail, Mezzatesta is prohibited from having any contact with minors.

Monday, February 27, 2012

R. B. Parrish's piece in The American Thinker is a stinging indictment of a media that doesn't worry about destroying the innocent when it wants to hype a story. (And Mr. Parrish links to our piece on Hofstra.)

Excerpt: "When the Duke players were first accused (falsely), the media had a field day telling us how the wealthy white prep-school graduates had wantonly abused and then raped a poor working woman of color. There was no in-between to this fable, no degree of uncertainty, not even the slightest space between pure good and pure evil in the accounting of spoiled males sunk in depravity and their innocent (and very politically correct) victim.

"It was only grudgingly that the media finally admitted that they might have a few facts wrong; but by then the impressions had sunk in. That the father of one of the accused had been raised by a black family; that the father of another grew up poor but after he made his fortune used a chunk of it for black education and for building medical clinics in Africa, somehow never made it into print. That would have disrupted the pure morality tale. And it didn't matter anyway; as Evan Thomas of Newsweek explained his magazine's hyping of the story: 'The facts were wrong, but the narrative was right.'" Read it allhere.

R. B. Parrish's piece in The American Thinker is a stinging indictment of a media that doesn't worry about destroying the innocent when it wants to hype a story. (And Mr. Parrish links to our piece on Hofstra.)

Excerpt: "When the Duke players were first accused (falsely), the media had a field day telling us how the wealthy white prep-school graduates had wantonly abused and then raped a poor working woman of color. There was no in-between to this fable, no degree of uncertainty, not even the slightest space between pure good and pure evil in the accounting of spoiled males sunk in depravity and their innocent (and very politically correct) victim.

"It was only grudgingly that the media finally admitted that they might have a few facts wrong; but by then the impressions had sunk in. That the father of one of the accused had been raised by a black family; that the father of another grew up poor but after he made his fortune used a chunk of it for black education and for building medical clinics in Africa, somehow never made it into print. That would have disrupted the pure morality tale. And it didn't matter anyway; as Evan Thomas of Newsweek explained his magazine's hyping of the story: 'The facts were wrong, but the narrative was right.'" Read it allhere.

The opening line of a Philadelphia news report last Wednesday left no doubt that a sexual assault occurred: "Camden County Prosecutor Warren W. Faulk and Camden Police Chief Scott Thomson confirmed another sexual assault in the city Wednesday afternoon." See here.

Did you really "confirm" that a sexual assault had, indeed, occurred, Mr. Faulk and Chief Thomsan? If so, you acted with gross irresponsibility.

The news report continued: "The woman was walking when she was attacked by a man carrying a knife and directed into a secluded area off the road. She was sexually assaulted and the assailant fled."

Reading that story, there was no question that a sexual assault occurred.Alas, apparently it didn't. Here's the story that appeared Friday:

"Janira Lebron, of the 200 block of S 27th Street in Camden, initially told investigators on Wednesday that she had been sexually assaulted near Baird Boulevard and Randolph Street in Camden shortly afternoon. Lebron provided information about her assailant that indicated he might have been the same man responsible for three other rapes in the area over the last two months.

"In response to her claims, police dispatched dozens of officers to the scene. Members of the State Police, Camden County Prosecutor’s Office and the Sheriff’s Department were also deployed. However, hours later, the Camden County Prosecutor’s Office released a statement that said there were 'serious concerns about the allegations of sexual assault that were reported,' and a source confirmed to Eyewitness News that Lebron falsified the account (see previous story).

"Police say Lebron’s claims and the resulting investigation of her account delayed their arrest of the suspect believed responsible for the previous three rapes, Kevin Cleveland, who was taken into custody on Thursday." See here.

That's not the end of our story. It was reported Friday that a suspect was arrested for three earlier sexual assaults. Read what Camden Police Chief Scott Thomson told reporters about the presumptively innocent man who was arrested -- but who has not been convicted -- for those sexual assaults: "I'm happy to tell the residents of the City of Camden that this animal is behind bars."

The opening line of a Philadelphia news report last Wednesday left no doubt that a sexual assault occurred: "Camden County Prosecutor Warren W. Faulk and Camden Police Chief Scott Thomson confirmed another sexual assault in the city Wednesday afternoon." See here.

Did you really "confirm" that a sexual assault had, indeed, occurred, Mr. Faulk and Chief Thomsan? If so, you acted with gross irresponsibility.

The news report continued: "The woman was walking when she was attacked by a man carrying a knife and directed into a secluded area off the road. She was sexually assaulted and the assailant fled."

Reading that story, there was no question that a sexual assault occurred.

Saturday, February 25, 2012

A few weeks ago, Congressman Ron Paul sat down with Piers Morgan (who took over Larry King's spot on CNN because, near as I can tell, he has a British accent) and departed from his usual “no abortion under any circumstances” position. The following exchange occurred:MORGAN: You have two daughters. You have many granddaughters. If one of them was raped -- and I accept it's a very unlikely thing to happen -- but if they were, would you honestly look at them in the eye and say they had to have that child if they were impregnated?

PAUL: No. If it's an honest rape, that individual should go immediately to the emergency room. I would give them a shot of estrogen....

Congressman Paul later added: "If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, 'Well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it,' it's a little bit different story."

This is not the place to discuss in detail Congressman Paul's politics, which are often very controversial and, generally, far from mainstream. We will volunteer this: if President Obama's positions on civil liberties (e.g., the Patriot Act) were closer to Paul's, many of the president's disappointed supporters would be less disappointed.

Ron Paul sometimes words things in a peculiar way. His use of the term "honest rape" caused some pundits on the extreme left to have a conniption.

Jessica Wakeman, who writes for the Frisky, said this: "The thing I would love to know about people who claim women lie about rape all the time is whether any of them actually know someone who has lied about a rape."

Wait, wait, wait. Did Congressman Paul ever say women lie about rape "all the time"? We would have heard about that one, right? It would have been discussed a little bit by the news media, don't you think? In fact, has any rational person ever suggested that? This is the nation's leading site that gives voice to persons wrongly accused of heinous sex allegations, and we don't say women lie about rape "all the time." But nice straw man, Ms. Wakeman. The bottom line for her is that "Old White Men," as Wakeman derisively calls them, obviously are not entitled to opinions about things that affect women of child bearing years.

Over at theMaddow Blog, someone named Steve Benen even took offense at Morgan's question. "Morgan is working under the assumption that the daughters and granddaughters of prominent politicians are 'unlikely' to face a sexual attacker. Reality doesn't work that way."

Really? Those daughters and granddaughters are likely to face a sexual attacker, Mr. Benen?

Well, it's clear where Mr. Benen is coming from, isn't it?

Of course it's Paul's response that gets Mr. Benen's blood boiling. ". . . it's Paul's response that's truly offensive. Victims of an 'honest rape' should be allowed to go to the emergency room, but everyone else -- presumably victims of dishonest rape? -- should expect to have their reproductive rights curtailed under Ron Paul's vision of government power."

Oh, my.

We are not going to get into the abortion debate here. But every rational person knows what Ron Paul meant. One of the ways that persons who favor legal abortion demonize persons who do not is to point out that the latter would not allow abortions even when the woman has been raped, akin to Morgan's "gotcha" question to Paul. Paul surprised Morgan by saying that although he opposes abortion, he favors an exception for rape. Implicit in that exception is that the claim must be an actual rape, not a false rape claim, so it was arguably redundant for Paul to add that it must be an "honest" rape.

Mr. Benen harrumphed: "I'll look forward to Paul or his campaign elaborating on what, exactly, 'honest rape' refers to, but the implication seems to be that American women are not to be trusted when it comes to rape claims."

Sigh. No, Mr. Benen, Congressman Paul's implication is that American women who lie about rape shouldn't get an abortion. Some women do lie about rape, you know, Mr. Benen. Spend a few weeks reading through this blog if you don't know that.

Benen continues: "Those who qualify as rape victims under this Republican's standards would be eligible for emergency contraception; those who failed to meet his standards would not. Who gets to decide? Apparently, Paul and other policymakers."

Sigh again. So, we're going to have "rape panels" to decide if women tell the truth? Doesn't that sound a lot like Sarah Palin's "death panels"? I never heard Mr. Paul say what Benen suggests.

Mr. Paul actually gave one example where, he thinks, a woman probably wouldn't qualify for an abortion. "If you talk about somebody coming in and they say, 'Well, I was raped and I'm seven months pregnant and I don't want to have anything to do with it,' it's a little bit different story."

Whether Congressman Paul's thinking on this point can stand up to scrutiny, I don't know. But, arguably, since the woman would not be reporting rape to police, she should have less reason to wait to come in for an abortion if, in fact, she was raped.

Mr. Benen continues: "Paul, a staunch of opponent of abortion rights, is pushing a line that's tragically common on the right: women's claims are not to be taken at face value, and it's up to government to draw the lines."

Oh, my, oh, my. I think I would have heard a "line" about rape that's "tragically common," since I follow this area closely. In fact, Mr. Benen has it exactly backwards. The law-and-order right is very quick to believe women when they say they were raped, the civil liberties of the presumptively innocent men they accuse be damned. Bob Dole was one of the architects of VAWA, which bought into the now-debunked two percent canard.

If I were cynical, I'd say that what's really going on here is typical feminist straw man building: how dare anyone suggest that some women lie about rape.

A few weeks ago, Congressman Ron Paul sat down with Piers Morgan (who took over Larry King's spot on CNN because, near as I can tell, he has a British accent) and departed from his usual “no abortion under any circumstances” position. The following exchange occurred:

Friday, February 24, 2012

Add this story to the category of "Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall."

Ruby Hamad urges mainstream feminism "to acknowledge how animal and women’s oppression are linked." She claims that "the reasons cited for denying rights to animals are the same that were used to do the same to women and black slaves." See here.

By any measure, cruelty to animals is an abomination, but, you're kidding, Ms. Hamad, aren't you?

She's not, and it gets worse. In Hamad's world, it is female animals that are especially oppressed: "Feminism and animal advocacy make natural allies given that it is the abuse of the reproductive capacity of female animals that perpetuates animal exploitation."Hide the children, Hamad is about to cite examples. She notes the fact that "egg-laying hens are crammed into . . . cages for up to two years until they are ‘spent’ and slaughtered." And that's not all: "Sows, whose entire lives are spent in a continual cycle of pregnancy and birth, are confined in gestational stalls barely bigger than their own bodies." And the most telling: "Dairy cows are artificially inseminated every year of their lives until their milk dries up. The apparatus in which cows are restrained during insemination is known in the industry, particularly in the US, as a ‘rape rack.’"

What do each of these female animals have in common? They are "unnaturally forced into the reproductive role."

"Unnaturally forced" is reminiscent of "non-consensual." Hamad stops short of saying female animals are "raped," but that doesn't mean there isn't some seriously unhinged anthropomorphism going on here.

Hamad unloads her money quote: "[The female animals'] milk, eggs and offspring are subsumed into the industry cycle, marketed and sold for human consumption, much as women’s bodies are marketed and sold for male consumption."

It is comical, weird, sad, and a little creepy, all at once, that Hamad studiously avoids mentioning the particular cruelty faced by males of the animal kingdom. At the risk of being accused of whining "what about teh male animals!", need we remind readers of the obvious? Cockfighting and bullfighting and the baiting of all manner of male animals are still considered entertainments in many places around the world. And cruelty to male animals isn't confined to obviously barbaric "sports." The bulls spared the glory of the bull ring, for example, don't have it especially nice, either. The vast majority -- aside from the few "lucky" ones "unnaturally forced into the reproductive role" -- are castrated as calves, then slaughtered before they are three years old. The "lucky" ones permitted to keep their lives and their testicles often get a nose ring to control them.

Let's leave it at this: we need to hope that when we contribute to charities that battle against animal cruelty (I do), the money doesn't go to people like Ruby Hamad or her like-minded friends. They seem interested only in the cruelty to half the animal kingdom.

Injecting "gender" into issues of animal cruelty, and comparing the insemination of cows to human rape, signal that feminism has been co-opted by fools, hysterics, paranoids, and congenital idiots.

Add this story to the category of "Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall."

Ruby Hamad urges mainstream feminism "to acknowledge how animal and women’s oppression are linked." She claims that "the reasons cited for denying rights to animals are the same that were used to do the same to women and black slaves." See here.

By any measure, cruelty to animals is an abomination, but, you're kidding, Ms. Hamad, aren't you?

She's not, and it gets worse. In Hamad's world, it is female animals that are especially oppressed: "Feminism and animal advocacy make natural allies given that it is the abuse of the reproductive capacity of female animals that perpetuates animal exploitation."

A relationship ended abruptly after an Auckland man dished out some vigilante revenge then found out his partner's claims of being date raped were a lie, a court heard this week.

Regan Scott Derrick, 27, was sentenced to five months' community detention and ordered to pay reparation of $1000 for two convictions of injuring with intent when he appeared in the Hamilton District Court this week over a violent incident in September last year.

His then girlfriend returned to Auckland after a Saturday night out in Hamilton with some of her friends.

As a result of the night's festivities, she was vomiting and crying and complained to Derrick about being date raped and having some of her belongings stolen by some men.

But the story was completely fabricated by his ex-partner, who had actually willingly taken drugs with the men and not been date raped as she had claimed.

Upset by the story, Derrick gathered a group of three mates to travel to Hamilton to repossess the items and deal out some vigilante justice.

When the group of Auckland men got to the property where they believed the offending had taken place, they knocked on the door and asked the man who answered whether the girls had been there the previous night.

After getting confirmation, they barged into the house and a violent altercation took place.

When he later found out his girlfriend's story was untrue he was "shocked and horrified" and broke up with the woman, who he said he had previously seen as a potential long-term partner.

Judge Arthur Tompkins gave him credit for seeking counselling after the event and the sentence of community detention would allow the 27-year-old to take over the family business.

A relationship ended abruptly after an Auckland man dished out some vigilante revenge then found out his partner's claims of being date raped were a lie, a court heard this week.

Regan Scott Derrick, 27, was sentenced to five months' community detention and ordered to pay reparation of $1000 for two convictions of injuring with intent when he appeared in the Hamilton District Court this week over a violent incident in September last year.

His then girlfriend returned to Auckland after a Saturday night out in Hamilton with some of her friends.

As a result of the night's festivities, she was vomiting and crying and complained to Derrick about being date raped and having some of her belongings stolen by some men.

But the story was completely fabricated by his ex-partner, who had actually willingly taken drugs with the men and not been date raped as she had claimed.

Upset by the story, Derrick gathered a group of three mates to travel to Hamilton to repossess the items and deal out some vigilante justice.

When the group of Auckland men got to the property where they believed the offending had taken place, they knocked on the door and asked the man who answered whether the girls had been there the previous night.

After getting confirmation, they barged into the house and a violent altercation took place.

When he later found out his girlfriend's story was untrue he was "shocked and horrified" and broke up with the woman, who he said he had previously seen as a potential long-term partner.

Judge Arthur Tompkins gave him credit for seeking counselling after the event and the sentence of community detention would allow the 27-year-old to take over the family business.

A particularly dark and twisted corner of the Internet's progressive wasteland is occupied by a dismal feminist circle jerk known as Jezebel.

Jezebel is not a Web site. To paraphrase the lamentably late Michael Musmanno, it is a slimy gathering of all that is rotten in the debris of human depravity. And in the center of this waste and stench, splashes, leaps, cavorts, and wallows a literally man-hating specimen that responds to the name Erin Gloria Ryan.

Ryan is the same woman who made the astounding assertion, with no authority beyond her angry, uninformed ipse dixit, that sexual abuse is not taken as seriously when it's victims are female.

Ryan is the same woman who put her name to a singularly childish and hysterical rebuke of Peter Berkowitz's carefully crafted explanation about the dangers to presumptively innocent men presented by the Department of Education's April 4 "Dear Colleague" directive. Read about it here.

In short, Ryan is the most dim-witted of radical feminism's screeching lights, and that's saying a lot. Her latest gift to the world is a typically profane and hateful piece that she calls "Fuck, Marry, Kill: The Romney Sons." See here. It's opening line: "As the 2012 political season heats up, it's important that we don't lose sight of what's really important in the election cycle: the fuckability levels of candidates' sons."

You see, this is what passes for humor among the urban sophisticates who mock the "guns and religion" crowd behind their backs.

Ryan's piece proves it is politically correct to (1) sexually objectify young men, in a mocking, high school-girlish way; and (2) joke about killing the offspring of a presidential candidate, so long as the offspring are male, and so long as the presidential candidate is Republican. (Robert and Tad Lincoln: watch your backs.)

Of Josh Romney, Ryan gushes: "Have you seen pictures of this guy with facial hair? He wears scruff unbelievably well. Fuckably well. This one's saved from the theoretical guillotine by his handsomeness."

Of Craig Romney, Ryan writes: "At 30, he's the youngest, so may be the most sexually vibrant of the Romney sons." (Note that if a "men's rights advocate" mentions the word "cougar," he's villified across the femisphere, but feminists who write with distinct cougar sensibilities are given a pass.)

Ultimately, though, Ryan votes to KILL Craig: "From some angles, he looks like . . . a delicate man with soft hands that may not know what to do with an axe or a boob." (Do I sense a gay slur there?)

And, of course -- you knew this was coming -- Ryan simply can't pass up the opportunity to mock Craig's religion: "Sorry, Craig. On the bright side, with death comes the Celestial Kingdom, no?" Ah those darn enlightened progressives! So open-minded -- about people who are exactly like them (and, of course, Muslims, too).

Ryan sprinkles her case to MARRY Ben Romney with a little misandry: "He's also the least square-jawed of the Romnettes, and thus may lack the manly hormones that evolutionary psychologists say cause men to cheat." Alas, ultimately, Ryan votes to KILL Ben, too.

The piece is awash with the sort of smug progressivism that takes for granted, for example, the belief that anyone who would even consider voting for Mitt Romney is stupid, backward, and likely evil (and I mean "evil" in a secular, green sort of way). Example: discussing Josh Romney, Ryan writes: "The case for fuck: He's very Ken doll-like, but lives in Salt Lake City. Clearly you're not moving there, so this is just going to have to be a one-time thing."

Salt Lake City! Ew! I mean, it's conservative, and people actually attend church services there! They probably don't even have Amtrak.

Have you seen enough? Seriously?

When will Jezebel realize that Erin Gloria Ryan not only is an embarrassment to its shoddy site, but that she's a powerful public service announcement for the opposite of whatever position she is screeching about?

A particularly dark and twisted corner of the Internet's progressive wasteland is occupied by a dismal feminist circle jerk known as Jezebel.

Jezebel is not a Web site. To paraphrase the lamentably late Michael Musmanno, it is a slimy gathering of all that is rotten in the debris of human depravity. And in the center of this waste and stench, splashes, leaps, cavorts, and wallows a literally man-hating specimen that responds to the name Erin Gloria Ryan.

Ryan is the same woman who made the astounding assertion, with no authority beyond her angry, uninformed ipse dixit, that sexual abuse is not taken as seriously when it's victims are female.

Ryan is the same woman who put her name to a singularly childish and hysterical rebuke of Peter Berkowitz's carefully crafted explanation about the dangers to presumptively innocent men presented by the Department of Education's April 4 "Dear Colleague" directive. Read about it here.

In short, Ryan is the most dim-witted of radical feminism's screeching lights, and that's saying a lot.

FIRST STORY RE: JANUARY 23 'SEXUAL ASSAULT'Police investigate sexual assault

On January 23rd 2012 shortly after 6 PM a female was walking home on Darling Street, when she was approached by two unidentified males, walking through Charles Ward Park. The males attacked the victim and sexually assaulted her in a secluded area of the park. The female was released after the assault, and the two suspects left the area.

The first male is described as being a white male in his mid twenties 6’2”-6’3”, bald head, clean shaven with a lip piercing and a stocky build. He was wearing jeans, boots, and a white and black hoodie that was zipped up the front with the hood pulled up.

The second male was described as being a white male in his mid twenties 5’10”-6’0” short buzzed blonde hair with a pointy face and dark clothing.

Anyone with information is asked to contact Detective Dave Minutillo at 519-756-0113 extension 2266, or to call Brant-Brantford Crime Stoppers at 519-750-8477.

FRS COMMENT: Note that in the story above, the alleged sexual assault is reported as a certainty. This sort of sloppiness is typical of the reporting of alleged sexual assaults -- overall it is egregious -- where there is no evidence beyond the accusation of the putative victim.

SECOND STORY RE: JANUARY 23 'SEXUAL ASSAULT':Police close case on Jan. 23 sex assault

A report of a sexual assault in Charles Ward Park on Jan. 23 was false and the case is now closed, a Brantford police spokesman said Monday.

An investigation into the report revealed the sexual assault did not take place, the spokesman said.

It had been alleged that woman was sexually assaulted by two men in a secluded area of the park after they had approached her on Darling Street.

FRS COMMENT: Please spare us the pablum that the suspect didn't name anyone. Do you need proof that innocent men and boys are too often suspects and are even charged for rape claims where the accuser did not initially name someone?

FIRST STORY RE: JANUARY 23 'SEXUAL ASSAULT'Police investigate sexual assault

On January 23rd 2012 shortly after 6 PM a female was walking home on Darling Street, when she was approached by two unidentified males, walking through Charles Ward Park. The males attacked the victim and sexually assaulted her in a secluded area of the park. The female was released after the assault, and the two suspects left the area.

The first male is described as being a white male in his mid twenties 6’2”-6’3”, bald head, clean shaven with a lip piercing and a stocky build. He was wearing jeans, boots, and a white and black hoodie that was zipped up the front with the hood pulled up.

The second male was described as being a white male in his mid twenties 5’10”-6’0” short buzzed blonde hair with a pointy face and dark clothing.

Anyone with information is asked to contact Detective Dave Minutillo at 519-756-0113 extension 2266, or to call Brant-Brantford Crime Stoppers at 519-750-8477.

FRS COMMENT: Note that in the story above, the alleged sexual assault is reported as a certainty. This sort of sloppiness is typical of the reporting of alleged sexual assaults -- overall it is egregious -- where there is no evidence beyond the accusation of the putative victim.

SECOND STORY RE: JANUARY 23 'SEXUAL ASSAULT':Police close case on Jan. 23 sex assault

A report of a sexual assault in Charles Ward Park on Jan. 23 was false and the case is now closed, a Brantford police spokesman said Monday.

An investigation into the report revealed the sexual assault did not take place, the spokesman said.

It had been alleged that woman was sexually assaulted by two men in a secluded area of the park after they had approached her on Darling Street.

FRS COMMENT: Please spare us the pablum that the suspect didn't name anyone. Do you need proof that innocent men and boys are too often suspects and are even charged for rape claims where the accuser did not initially name someone?

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

A follow-up to our story yesterday about Max Nicastro. Mr. Nicastro was charged with rape, and he has pled not guilty. Mr. Nicastro has left Boston University amid the charges.

According to the Boston Herald: "Nicastro’s arrest follows the December bust of then leading Terrier scorer Corey Trivino, who was charged with bursting into a resident assistant’s room and groping her. [Katherine Redmond, founder of the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes] said the NCAA needs to provide schools like BU resources to help prevent future sex crimes by athletes: 'My concern is how they address that culture so that it doesn’t happen again.'” See here.

What is the "it," Ms. Redmond?

What is the "it"?

Of course we know what the "it" is, Ms. Redmond.

It's another sex "crime" -- like the two you assume were committed at BU -- based on allegations of female students.

A follow-up to our story yesterday about Max Nicastro. Mr. Nicastro was charged with rape, and he has pled not guilty. Mr. Nicastro has left Boston University amid the charges.

According to the Boston Herald: "Nicastro’s arrest follows the December bust of then leading Terrier scorer Corey Trivino, who was charged with bursting into a resident assistant’s room and groping her. [Katherine Redmond, founder of the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes] said the NCAA needs to provide schools like BU resources to help prevent future sex crimes by athletes: 'My concern is how they address that culture so that it doesn’t happen again.'” See here.

What is the "it," Ms. Redmond?

What is the "it"?

Of course we know what the "it" is, Ms. Redmond.

It's another sex "crime" -- like the two you assume were committed at BU -- based on allegations of female students.

"They concentrated on male youths and whoever did not manage to escape was to be killed." See here. They were rounded up and shot in cold blood.

A cursory glance at the news stories reporting this atrocity reveals that the the victims are called "young men." Some call them "male youths." I suspect the latter description is more accurate, meaning teen males -- more commonly known as "boys."

So, again, did you hear the outrage over this atrocity, this gendered massacre?

Cue the crickets chirping.In Google News this morning, you will see story after story after story about the two journalists who were killed as part of the same Syrian rampage that took the lives of the 27 "male youths." The boys who were killed were captured and killed in cold blood. The two journalists, on the other hand, were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Yet, the deaths of two Western journalists are considered the bigger news story.

In the news reports about the 27 "male youths," this is typical of the headlines: "Syrian troops kill 27 in village raids." See here. Just "27," not "27 boys."

Do you wonder how this story would be covered if 27 girls had been rounded up and murdered in cold blood? Do you think it would be the lead news story today? Do you think the word "girls" would appear in the headlines about the stories?

You can bet your left arm on both counts.

But surely the Obama administration is condemning this massacre, right? I mean right??

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the US didn't want to “take actions that would lead to the further militarization of Syria,” but said “additional measures” would be used to put an end to the conflict.

The fact is, the Syrian conflict has been particularly harsh on boys. See here. But when it's boys, the news media generally calls them "male youths," or better yet, "children," as in "women and children."

This is not to suggest that females are not singled out for harm because of their gender. Far from it. Nor is this to engage in an Oppression Olympics and to whine that "males have it worse." The point is that males are also singled out, but because of a twisted PC double standard, we rarely hear it. And if you think it's because females suffer more in war, you'd be wrong. Victims of war, both combatants and non-combatants, are more likely to be male: ". . . it is not surprising that far more men get killed on the battlefield than women, since they make up the overwhelming majority of combatants. But case study evidence also suggests that women are less likely to be victims of ‘collateral damage’, and non-combatant males are more likely to be subject to mass killing than non-combatant females. Further, some recent epidemiological survey evidence finds that males are more likely to die from war-induced malnutrition and disease than females." See here.

Yet, the US Secretary of State is permitted to make an outlandish statement like this one without any challenge: "The fact is that in today’s wars around the world, the primary victims are women and children." See here.

Maybe we've reached the point where we need to ditch the gender rhetoric altogether. Maybe we need to insist that our news media and our government stop focusing on the genitalia of the victim and start focusing on the victim. The public discourse on gender has been taken over by paranoids, hysterics, and boodlers. The result is absurd double standards.

"They concentrated on male youths and whoever did not manage to escape was to be killed." See here. They were rounded up and shot in cold blood.

A cursory glance at the news stories reporting this atrocity reveals that the the victims are called "young men." Some call them "male youths." I suspect the latter description is more accurate, meaning teen males -- more commonly known as "boys."

So, again, did you hear the outrage over this atrocity, this gendered massacre?

Both members of a Solon couple are facing charges after a woman filed a report saying her boyfriend beat and raped her, only to recant the allegations later, according to Solon Police.Police say the 31-year-old woman told police on Feb. 2 that her live-in boyfriend, 30, and father of her child had hit and raped her. Officers advised the woman to visit the hospital and see a sexual assault nurse examiner and speak with a victim's advocate through the court system, but the woman refused.

An arrest warrant was issued for the boyfriend as police continued to investigate the case. After the warrant was issued, the woman returned to police station and said she made the allegations up because she was mad at him.

Now both of them face charges. The boyfriend is charged with domestic violence and the woman is charged with falsification. The matter will now be sorted out by the court system.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

"As the parent of a child accused of rape last year, it is hard to begin to explain the grief, torment, and agony of seeing him being plastered all over the news, Google, and numerous other sites. People have no idea how families are affected by this. Anoymous emails sent to family members and on and on. Humiliation unimaginable knowing that friends and aquaintances can find out in less than a second by just trolling the internet. At times the pain has been so unbearable I felt I could not go on. Only by the grace of God and my children am I still on this earth.

"I do not know if he is innocent or guilty but he has already been deemed guilty by the public. Reading the comments by readers is unbearable. I would like to scream the injustice, but I know this would only fuel the frenzy of this mob-like mentality. He was just let go from a job, even though he was the best there, because it didn't look "good" for the company. No really, "tuff crap dude you are on your own." He now has no money, so where does that leave him in his ability to eat, pay his rent, attorney, etc?

"This is the most horrendous nightmare a parent could ever experience. Perhaps knowing that there is not a damn thing I can do is the worst feeling of all. His claims of innocence haunt me day and night. It is just too much to comprehend and I hope that one day our justice system will realize the extreme suffering endured by the family of the accused. Someone has to stop this madness. Guilty until proven innocent is never what our forefathers intended."

"As the parent of a child accused of rape last year, it is hard to begin to explain the grief, torment, and agony of seeing him being plastered all over the news, Google, and numerous other sites. People have no idea how families are affected by this. Anoymous emails sent to family members and on and on. Humiliation unimaginable knowing that friends and aquaintances can find out in less than a second by just trolling the internet. At times the pain has been so unbearable I felt I could not go on. Only by the grace of God and my children am I still on this earth.

"I do not know if he is innocent or guilty but he has already been deemed guilty by the public. Reading the comments by readers is unbearable. I would like to scream the injustice, but I know this would only fuel the frenzy of this mob-like mentality. He was just let go from a job, even though he was the best there, because it didn't look "good" for the company. No really, "tuff crap dude you are on your own." He now has no money, so where does that leave him in his ability to eat, pay his rent, attorney, etc?

"This is the most horrendous nightmare a parent could ever experience. Perhaps knowing that there is not a damn thing I can do is the worst feeling of all. His claims of innocence haunt me day and night. It is just too much to comprehend and I hope that one day our justice system will realize the extreme suffering endured by the family of the accused. Someone has to stop this madness. Guilty until proven innocent is never what our forefathers intended."

For the second time in three weeks, Boulder police report, a young woman has falsely reported a sexual assault.Allyson M. Manley, 18, told police that a stranger tried to sexually assault her in October near Big Horn Street and Star Lane in north Boulder. Tuesday, she was cited for false reporting, after she admitted she made up the story.

The University of Colorado's student directory lists an Allyson Marie Manley as an English major.

On Jan. 26, Nina Fiorillo, a 20-year-old University of Colorado, was issued a summons for the same offense of false reporting after admitting she concocted a story about being attacked by a stranger in the University Hill neighborhood.

Both women face up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $750.

Fiorillo told police she made up the story after her boyfriend refused to walk her home from a party.

Manley told police she was attacked at about 2:30 a.m. when she was walking alone by a man who left in a car that looked like a taxi cab, Boulder police said today.

She called police to the scene, who searched the area, while she was taken to a hospital.

Police sought leads and sent potential evidence to a crime lab.

"Investigators determined the initial statements provided by Ms. Manley conflicted with the information they had gathered," Boulder police said in a statement this afternoon. "In a recent interview with police, Manley admitted that she fabricated the story."

Monday, February 20, 2012

Max Nicastro, a defenseman on the BU men’s hockey team, was arrested after being accused of sexual assault by a female student. The investigation is continuing.

We frequently make the point rape claims are typically assumed to be true based on nothing more than an allegation, regardless of whether the people doing the assuming know anything about the incident, the accuser, or the accused.

If ours were a "rape culture," how would we expect the Nicastro story to be covered? We'd assume Mr. Nicastro is innocent, that his accuser is lying, and, in fact, we'd blame the accuser.So how is the story being covered? The way these stories are typically covered, which is exactly the opposite of the way we'd expect in a "rape culture." These stories are not covered with objectivity. They assume the male's guilt. And it happens in story after story after story. It is grossly unfair to the presumptively innocent men and boys who've been accused, and whose names are often splashed all over the news for the titillation of a public that wallows in tales of sexual misconduct.

A television reporter named Jennifer Eagan reported this: "Police say the assault happened on campus." That pretty much ends it, doesn't it? Why would police say an assault happened if it didn't? And why would a news reporter run with that unless it was true?The fact is, in case after case, charges are brought on the basis of nothing more than a plausible allegation before any investigation, and the police have no idea what really happened. That's the nature of a sexual assault claim, which almost always involves private activity. Yet, members of the news media typically repeat what they are told by police. This is problematic because once charges are brought, police rarely ever reveal weaknesses in rape cases while an investigation is ongoing (that's what made the DSK case so unusual) due, among other things, to fears of compromising cases that the district attorney eventually might want to bring to trial. (Example: police knew almost immediately that there were problems in the Hofstra false accuser's story, but the news media continued to scare the public about the four arrested minority young men right up until the time of the recantation.) On top of this, the defendant rarely ever talks to the news media because he doesn't want to incriminate himself.

The result is stories that start like this: "Police say Joe Smith brutally raped a Boston University student last night." And then, the news media makes sure to get a reaction quote from a scared or angry member of the public about the "rape." The public is left to conclude one thing: a rape occurred, and Joe Smith is a rapist. The trial is over even before it has begun.

With respect to the coverage of the Nicastro case, one news report starts in this manner: "After the second case of sexual assault in two months, many students at Boston University are questioning whether the alleged behavior of the school's hockey players reflects the team."

The comments of persons quoted in the news stories about this incident do not leave much room for the possibility that Mr. Nicastro is innocent.

One said this: "It doesn't shed good light on the hockey team at all," Student Ryan Lagoy said. "I didn't know they were arrested yet."

Another: "Disappointing seems like a weak word to use because, for me, it's just terrible that a person did that," said one student.

The Dean of Students said, “My concern on a much larger level is that we have students on this campus who don’t know how to treat each other. We have students who have been in situations where they are sexually assaulting others. I want to make sure we engage all our students in thinking about and understanding the serious nature of such allegations.’’

The news coverage also makes sure to mention the other sexual assault charge against a teammate of Mr. Nicastro, and to speculate whether there is a pattern of abuse in the entire hockey program at the university. The Boston Globe made the point that it's unusual to have two claims with respect to one team: "Other than Nicastro and Trivino [the other accused hockey player], fewer than five of BU’s 33,000 students this academic year have faced charges related to sexual assault, according to a school official."

It is, of course, almost certain that the Boston Globe would never cite that same statistic to make the point that rape is not rampant at Boston University. That its reporters use it to smear by innuendo, and unbridled conjecture, an entire sports program should be a concern to that newspaper's editors. We have no idea about either case cited, and it is grossly unfair to paint the entire program as a cistern of sexual misconduct.

We follow these cases very closely at FRS and find it endlessly perplexing that the news coverage of rape allegations often includes an assumption or an implication of guilt. We suspect it's human nature to believe what people tell us, and an allegation of rape adds a visceral element that disgusts the person hearing the news (we've reported on story after story here of vigilante misconduct where wrongly accused men or boys are beaten and even killed because of angry reactions to rape claims). It is one of our tasks here to remind the news media that it needs to rise above the emotions commonly experienced by the public whenever a woman cries "rape."

It is painfully obvious that the news media is more interested in its ratings and readership than in being fair to someone like Max Nicastro. Until the news media can report these incidents in an objective manner, free of assumptions of guilt, the only solution may be anonymity for men and boys accused of sex crimes.

Max Nicastro, a defenseman on the BU men’s hockey team, was arrested after being accused of sexual assault by a female student. The investigation is continuing.

We frequently make the point rape claims are typically assumed to be true based on nothing more than an allegation, regardless of whether the people doing the assuming know anything about the incident, the accuser, or the accused.

If ours were a "rape culture," how would we expect the Nicastro story to be covered? We'd assume Mr. Nicastro is innocent, that his accuser is lying, and, in fact, we'd blame the accuser.
So how is the story being covered? The way these stories are typically covered, which is exactly the opposite of the way we'd expect in a "rape culture." These stories are not covered with objectivity. They assume the male's guilt. And it happens in story after story after story. It is grossly unfair to the presumptively innocent men and boys who've been accused, and whose names are often splashed all over the news for the titillation of a public that wallows in tales of sexual misconduct.

A television reporter named Jennifer Eagan reported this: "Police say the assault happened on campus." That pretty much ends it, doesn't it? Why would police say an assault happened if it didn't? And why would a news reporter run with that unless it was true?

At first, I was going to remove the last 3 paragraphs, of this 9 paragraph news article. Why? Because they have absolutely nothing to do with what the article is actually about, a false rape claim. Instead, one third of the article is dedicated to a completely different crime. For anyone in the area, perhaps a call to the Greater Manchester Police, or the St. Mary's Sexual Assault Center, would be in order. Ask them what level of support they provide to those falsely accused.A MASSIVE police hunt for a rapist has been called off after the teenage victim admitted she made up the allegation.

The 16-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, claimed she had been dragged down a back alley as she walked home from a party in the early hours of Saturday.

She told police a man grabbed her from behind, dragged her into an alley off Lomax Street, Farnworth, pushed her to the ground, and raped her.

The girl has now been issued with a Fixed Penalty Notice by police.

Detective Inspector Gary Smith from Bolton CID said: “On this occasion, the rape that was alleged to have taken place in Farnworth on Saturday has proved to be a false account and we have issued a Fixed Penalty Notice.

“We take all reports of rape seriously and investigate thoroughly and without prejudice. Greater Manchester Police encourages anyone who has been a victim of rape or any sort of sexual abuse to come forward, but I must also stress the importance of providing police with genuine reports due to the time we invest in investigating these cases.

“I hope this incident does not deter genuine victims from coming forward to police. We have specially-trained officers who give a tremendous amount of time and support to anyone who has been a victim of rape and we work extremely closely with the St Marys Sexual Assault Referral Centre. We can not only help you, but also put your attacker behind bars.”

Anyone who has been a victim of rape or sexual assault can contact Greater Manchester Police on 0161 872 5050 or 999 in an emergency. GMP has specially trained officers in place to provide a first class response to victims and help support them through the criminal justice process.

St Mary's Sexual Assault Referral Centre in Manchester, can also be contacted on 0161 276 6515. This provides a comprehensive and coordinated forensic, counselling and medical aftercare service to anyone in Greater Manchester who has experienced rape or sexual assault. Services are available on a 24-hour basis and people can access them either as a self-referral or via Greater Manchester Police.

At first, I was going to remove the last 3 paragraphs, of this 9 paragraph news article. Why? Because they have absolutely nothing to do with what the article is actually about, a false rape claim. Instead, one third of the article is dedicated to a completely different crime. For anyone in the area, perhaps a call to the Greater Manchester Police, or the St. Mary's Sexual Assault Center, would be in order. Ask them what level of support they provide to those falsely accused.

Friday, February 17, 2012

Two things. First, she has been charged. Second, and more importantly, the man, although he was arrested, isn't named.About 11 a.m. Wednesday morning, Laura L. Sparks, 20, of Corbin, was charged with falsely reporting an incident.

She was taken to the Laurel County Corrections Center.

She had reported to Laurel County Detectives Charlie Loomis and Stacy Anderkin who investigated an alleged sexual assault in south Laurel County on Saturday morning.

The woman reported the sexual assault and went to the Baptist Regional Medical Center.

She reported it to Sheriff’s Deputy William Bo Harris and Loomis continued the investigation.

He arrested a 25-year-old man from Corbin and was taken to the Laurel County Corrections Center on a sexual assault charge.

The investigation by Loomis continued and determined that Sparks had gone to his home and later reported that she had been assaulted.

Witnesses’ statements and a followup interview with Sparks and her own admissions indicated it was a consensual act.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Julie Bindel is perhaps the foremost, screeching voice among the UK's progressive, man-indifferent, daily newspaper columnists. Among her smug, ideologically-driven missions is to insist that rape is rampant and that there is no reason to worry about the police getting it wrong and convicting an innocent man.

She's at it again this week with a column that may well discourage some rape victims from reporting. We'll get to that in a minute.First, let's tell our readers someting about Bindel.

Meet Julie Bindel

Back in 2010, Bindel had a radical feminist conniption (I know, I know, a redundancy) over the very suggestion that men accused of rape should be granted anonymity until conviction. Why? Bindel said that granting men anonymity would hurt the already slim chance women have to nab their rapists, and she cited the case every UK feminist falls back on when anonymity for men is even hinted at: serial rapist John Worboys. (Feminists claim that those concerned about false rape claims always cite Duke lacrosse even though it's not true. This blog, the leading site dedicated to giving voice to persons wrongly accused of rape, almost never focuses on that case. But trust me, UK feminists are obsessed with Worboys.)

Now pay attention, something interesting is coming: Bindel insists it was only when Worboys was arrested that his other victims came forward, thus, the need to insure men accused of rape never get anonymity.

But wouldn't anonymity be helpful for innocent men wrongly accused of rape? Watch Bindel do a 180: Anonymity is not necessary for them, Bindel clucks, because "[m]ost arrests for rape do not get reported in the press unless the accused is famous or the circumstances highly unusual. If such cases do make a brief mention in the local paper it is often no more than the community will already have learned from local gossip."

Stop. Stop. Stop, I'm getting whiplash. Let me get this straight: accused rapists shouldn't be anonymous because we need to publicize rapists; but not having anonymity doesn't hurt the wrongly accused -- because few rape accusations are publicized.

Get it? Neither do I.

Bindel is, of course, full of horseshit. The real reason people like Bindel oppose anonymity for men accused of rape is more sinister. She alludes to it. With anonymity, guilty men would "be able to relax in the knowledge that if, as in the majority of cases, it does not even get to court, no one will be any the wiser."

Hmm. What does that mean? It means that people like Julie Bindel think it's important to punish rapists by publicizing and shaming them in the news media on the basis of nothing more than an accusation. The fact that such publicity also punishes innocent men wrongly accused of rape, often destroying their reputations, their marriages, their social relationships, their businesses, and their chances of ever getting a decent job, is of no concern to Julie Bindel. The accusation becomes it's own conviction, and that's perfectly OK with Bindel and her ilk.

That very attitude, in a nutshell, is the thing this blog is most concerned about.

Julie Bindel May Well Be Discouraging Rape Victims From Coming Forward

This week, Bindel pumps out another screeching rape diatribe. She writes: "Britain has one of the lowest conviction rates of any European country (Only 6.5% of reported rapes end in a conviction on the charge of rape), leading some feminists to consider restorative justice (ie meeting your rapist and hearing him say 'sorry' as an alternative to throwing him in clink) or 'treatment' programmes rather than punishment. Then there is the impression, thanks to the extensive media coverage of such cases, that we are more concerned about women making 'false allegations' of rape than of convicting actual rapists."

Bindel uses the term "conviction rate" when she really means the "attrition rate." For a long time in the UK, the Home Office and politicians allied with anti-rape activists, have talked about the success rate in prosecuting rape by disingenuously citing the attrition rate for alleged rape, which is the number of convictions as a percentage of number of reported crimes. That rate is approximately 6.5%. But, the Home Office, and everyone else, uses the conviction rate, the number of convictions secured against the number of persons brought to trial for that given offence, for all other crimes – murder, assault, robbery, and so on. In fact, the conviction rate for rape is approximately 58%. Stern Review, page 45.

The chasm between 58% and 6.5% represents dishonesty of Biblical proportions. The result of such dishonest advocacy has made it appear that law enforcement is terribly, and uniquely, ineffective when it comes to rape.

Importantly, the Stern Review noted that the wrongful use of the attrition rate instead of the conviction rate "may well have discouraged some victims from reporting." Id.

By repeating this figure, Julie Bindel's fear-mongering well be discouraging some victims from reporting. But what else is new? People like Julie Bindel don't care if their Chicken Little shtick puts off rape victims from reporting because there is a more important issue to them: proving that women are oppressed because rape isn't taken seriously. Individual victims be damned.

It is well to note that the only place rape victims are hearing that they can't get justice and won't be believed is from people like Bindel.

We saw a crass example of this sort of irresponsible fear-mongering after the charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn were dropped last summer and they claimed that rape victims won't come forward because the case proved that women who report rape have to be "perfect" to get justice. One newspaper reported: ". . . for many feminists and victims' advocates, the victory for Strauss-Kahn is a defeat for women who have been sexually assaulted or raped, and who may already have been nervous about coming forward."

Those "feminists and victims' advocates" were being grossly dishonest. They failed to tell the whole story, and by publicly insisting that women can't get justice unless they are "perfect," they, themselves, improperly discouraged rape victims from coming forward. The accuser in the DSK case wasn't just not perfect; according to the very prosecutors who arrested and charged DSK (and forced him to take a humiliating and high profile "perp walk"), she was "persistently" and "inexplicably" untruthful to prosecutors, so unbelievable, in fact, that the prosecutors concluded she had no credibility. See here.

Julie Bindel is just another gender-divisive purveyor of lock-the-doors-and-hide-the-daughters rape hysteria who systematically foment irrational fears and encourage women to see sexual predation oozing from every male zipper. For the past 30 years or more, we have been subjected to this vile, mind-numbing tom-tom that slanders the entire male gender. These people care not a whit about painting innocent men as rapists, and their tawdry operatics in insisting rape victims can't get justice do no favors for women.

Julie Bindel is perhaps the foremost, screeching voice among the UK's progressive, man-indifferent, daily newspaper columnists. Among her smug, ideologically-driven missions is to insist that rape is rampant and that there is no reason to worry about the police getting it wrong and convicting an innocent man.

She's at it again this week with a column that may well discourage some rape victims from reporting. We'll get to that in a minute.

Jessica Smith, the 11-year-old Fort Worth girl who was the focus of an Amber Alert, admitted that her mother concocted a story about her father molesting her, which enraged her mother and led to the nationwide search, the father’s attorney said Monday.

The Smiths are in the middle of a nasty divorce and child custody fight.

NBC 5 has learned the girl made the admission to a school counselor on the same day police said her mother, Kimberly Smith, assaulted her and then disappeared with her that night.

Arrest warrants and affidavits claim Smith attempted to smother her daughter and threatened to kill Jessica and herself the day before Jessica was abducted. Read the full documents here.

The two were found Sunday, hungry and exhausted, in a remote area of northern New Mexico, police said.

Jessica’s father, Phillip Smith, was charged with assault after the girl made the graphic allegations that he had assaulted her.

Phillip Smith’s attorney, Tom Pappas, of Dallas, said he expected prosecutors to drop the case as early as Tuesday.

"Clearly, the mom ran because she forced Jessica to fabricate these allegations and was about to be uncovered -- or had been uncovered,” Pappas said.

Melody McDonald, a spokeswoman for the Tarrant County district attorney’s office, said the charges still stand but the new information is being reviewed.

NBC 5 doesn't usually name alleged victims of sexual assault. But in this case, Jessica Smith recanted the allegations, and the revelation sheds new light on what led to the Amber Alert.

"It's unfortunate her mom put her through this and put her center in all this stuff and then did the crazy stuff she did,” Pappas said. “We're glad she's all right."

Jessica Smith will stay with grandparents for now, but her father hopes to regain custody within days, the attorney said. Jessica was released to the custody of family members late Monday night.

"He loves his daughter,” Pappas said. “The only thing he wanted is she's safe. As long as she's safe, everything else can be resolved."

Fort Worth police are awaiting the extradition of Kimberly Smith, who is being held in New Mexico.

Jessica Smith, the 11-year-old Fort Worth girl who was the focus of an Amber Alert, admitted that her mother concocted a story about her father molesting her, which enraged her mother and led to the nationwide search, the father’s attorney said Monday.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

SANDPOINT — A Priest River woman has been sentenced for falsely claiming to police that she was raped by her former employer last year.

Jennifer Lee Robinson pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of making false statements to law enforcement during a pretrial hearing on Feb. 3, court records show.

Bonner County Magistrate Court Judge Debra Heise sentenced Robinson to 60 days in jail with 59 days suspended and credit for one day she served behind bars. A condition of her probation requires her to follow her doctor’s recommendations regarding counseling and medication, according to court records.

Robinson, 29, told Priest River Police she was raped at a home last August. She claimed that the 50-year-old alleged perpetrator struck her, choked her into unconsciousness and raped her.

She later recanted the allegations, the police report said.

In exchange for her guilty plea, prosecutors agreed to dismiss a misdemeanor domestic battery charge that was pending against her.

SANDPOINT — A Priest River woman has been sentenced for falsely claiming to police that she was raped by her former employer last year.

Jennifer Lee Robinson pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of making false statements to law enforcement during a pretrial hearing on Feb. 3, court records show.

Bonner County Magistrate Court Judge Debra Heise sentenced Robinson to 60 days in jail with 59 days suspended and credit for one day she served behind bars. A condition of her probation requires her to follow her doctor’s recommendations regarding counseling and medication, according to court records.

Robinson, 29, told Priest River Police she was raped at a home last August. She claimed that the 50-year-old alleged perpetrator struck her, choked her into unconsciousness and raped her.

She later recanted the allegations, the police report said.

In exchange for her guilty plea, prosecutors agreed to dismiss a misdemeanor domestic battery charge that was pending against her.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

When I first read the headline, my first thought was, "she broke out of jail to avoid facing charges for a false rape claim"? But no, that's not what this is about. It's just another in a long line of false claims about being raped in a taxi. It appears that the taxi driver was never arrested (we don't know if he was hauled in for questioning, forced to submit to DNA testing, etc.). We've already seen evidence of taxi drivers taking measures to protect themselves against falser rape claims -- seehere. While refusing to pick up single young women is drastic, it will not be surprising if drivers stop picking up women if there is even an appearance they've been drinking.

Here is the news story:A 20 year-old girl has escaped jail after she admitted falsely claiming she was raped by a taxi driver.

Carol Leonard, of Briarsfield Road, Kilbarrack, told Gardai she was raped in a taxi following a night out in September, 2010.

The trained beauty therapist withdrew her statement a number of weeks later, admitting to officers that she didn’t remember what happened, and the rape was ‘in her head’.

In imposing a suspended sentence, the Judge described the offence as ‘profoundly immoral’, saying the only redeeming feature was that nobody had been arrested by Gardai.